Americans United - mollie ziegler hemingwayhttps://www.au.org/tags/mollie-ziegler-hemingway
enMarriage Matters: Thoughts On The Recent Unpleasantness In Indiana https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/marriage-matters-thoughts-on-the-recent-unpleasantness-in-indiana
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">In Indiana, it became imperative to pass a &#039;religious freedom&#039; law only after same-sex marriage became legal there in October of 2014.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Last week I taped an interview with Sister Maureen Fielder, host of “Interfaith Voices,” a <a href="http://interfaithradio.org/Story_Details/Debating_the_True_Intentions_of_Indiana__s_Religious_Freedom_Law">popular radio program</a> exploring religious issues that is carried by many NPR stations.</p><p>The topic of the show was Indiana’s new “religious freedom” law, and appearing with me was Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, senior editor at <em>The Federalist</em>, a libertarian journal. We had a spirited but thoughtful discussion.</p><p>At one point, Hemingway opined that the nation is grappling with a conflict between sexual liberty and religious liberty. Her point seemed to be that LGBT rights activists and their allies in the media have decided that sexual liberty is more important than religious liberty, and thus the latter must yield.</p><p>It made a nice argument for radio, but it’s too glib to stand up to rigorous analysis. Same-sex couples aren’t seeking the right to have sex; consenting adults have had that right for a long time. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated anti-sodomy laws in <em>Lawrence v. Texas</em> in 2003. (Such laws, which existed in 14 states, weren’t being enforced in most of them.)</p><p>The current cultural battle isn’t about who an adult chooses to sleep with. It is about marriage. And because marriage is – or ought to be – serious business, people are smart enough to know what’s at stake. That’s why they took to the streets in Indiana. That’s why there was such a blowback to a law that used religious liberty as a stalking horse for discrimination. That’s why we’re still feeling the reverberations.</p><p>Same-sex couples are seeking – and increasingly winning – the rights that opposite-sex couples have taken for granted for centuries: the right to make a legal and public declaration of love and support; the right to have a legal say in each other’s lives and the power to make decisions for one another if one partner becomes incapacitated; the right to own property jointly; the right to inherit property and goods if one partner dies; the right to raise children, etc.</p><p>Those are the tangible benefits of marriage. The intangible benefits are more difficult to describe but can be perhaps best summed up in the daily comfort and strength one receives from the knowledge that there is someone who cares for you in a way no other does.</p><p>Both the tangible and intangible benefits are powerful. But the state of Indiana didn’t choose to facilitate their extension to same-sex couples. Instead, it chose to offer protections to bakers who don’t want to make cakes for certain people.</p><p>We heard it said a lot last week that Indiana’s law wasn’t really about discrimination against gay people. Is that so? Religious Right groups seemed to think that it was. And when Gov. Mike Pence signed the law, he was flanked by several beaming <a href="http://www.glaad.org/blog/one-simple-graphic-shows-anti-lgbt-animus-behind-indianas-new-law">anti-LGBT activists</a> who seemed to have reason to believe they had scored a political victory.</p><p>The fact is, the Indiana bill was never about defending a Sikh who wanted to wear a turban with his police uniform or protecting Amish-owned shops from burdensome red tape. If real religious liberty violations had been occurring in Indiana, they would have been addressed a long time ago. That didn’t happen. In Indiana, it became imperative to pass a “religious freedom” law only after same-sex marriage became legal there in October of 2014.</p><p>The backlash put a stop to it this time, but that doesn’t mean we’ve seen the last of this issue. Far from it. Many observers believe the Supreme Court may be on the verge of extending same-sex marriage nationwide. Religious Right groups are determined to formulate a contingency plan. Right now, that plan takes the form of dressing up shabby forms of discrimination in the noble garment of religious liberty.</p><p>That will be the Religious Right’s strategy for the foreseeable future. Despite the turn of events in Indiana, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/05/3643062/inspired-indiana-lousiana-considers-pro-discrimination-marriage-conscience-act/">we haven’t seen the last of it</a>.</p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/marriage">Marriage</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/maureen-fielder">Maureen Fielder</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/interfaith-voices">Interfaith Voices</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/mollie-ziegler-hemingway">mollie ziegler hemingway</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/mike-pence">Mike Pence</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/same-sex-marriage">same-sex marriage</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/indiana">Indiana</a></span></div></div>Mon, 06 Apr 2015 14:52:18 +0000Rob Boston11023 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/marriage-matters-thoughts-on-the-recent-unpleasantness-in-indiana#comments'Faith-Based' Bungle: WSJ Op-Ed Writer Gets It Wronghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/faith-based-bungle-wsj-op-ed-writer-gets-it-wrong
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">AU would rather be on the inside, pushing for change and seeking improvements. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p><em>The Wall Street Journal</em>'s editorial page takes a potshot at Americans United and Barry Lynn today.</p>
<p>That's not surprising. <em>The Journal</em>'s news department is staffed by lots of skilled and professional reporters who have done some crackerjack reporting on the Religious Right over the years. Fortunately, there's a wall of separation between those folks and the editorial page staff.</p>
<p>The latter is, as the saying goes, to the right of Attila the Hun.</p>
<p>In her "Faith-Based Double Standards" <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574391183769432284.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">essay today</a>, Mollie Ziegler Hemingway complains that President Barack Obama is getting a free pass on the "faith-based" initiative. She cites a study by the Pew Charitable Trusts purporting to find that Obama's faith-based initiative isn't generating nearly the coverage that Bush's did. The implication seems to be that the "liberal media" isn't subjecting Obama to the same level of scrutiny.</p>
<p>I respect the folks at Pew. They do some good research about religion in public life. But this time I think they overlooked a simple point that explains these results: When Bush unveiled the faith-base initiative, it was his first domestic program. It was seen as new and ground-breaking, so it was big news.</p>
<p>Obama is merely continuing Bush's approach. Fair or not, from the media's perspective, that's just not as newsworthy. You're not going to see headlines in the paper reading, "Existing Program To Continue."</p>
<p>Hemingway is also wrong to imply that Americans United is suddenly less concerned about the faith-based initiative. I have to wonder if she has been to our Web site lately. We've run articles in <em>Church &amp; State</em> about our concerns over Obama's approach. We've issued press releases and have talked to any media outlet that will listen. We've written blog items. (<a href="http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2009/03/faith-based-init.html">Here</a> are <a href="http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2009/02/president-obamas.html">just</a> a <a href="http://blog.au.org/2009/02/20/veto-power-what-james-madison-can-teach-barack-obama/">few</a>.)</p>
<p>I don't think anyone could look at this material and fail to understand that we're disappointed. AU wants Obama to fix the initiative's glaring constitutional defects. We have not been shy about saying that.</p>
<p>Finally, Hemingway notes that Lynn serves on a task force that examines the constitutional issues raised by the faith-based initiative. She implies that this is some type of sellout.</p>
<p>It's the exact opposite. AU would rather be on the inside, pushing for change and seeking improvements. Given an opportunity to engage the process, we took it. Barry has not watered down his views one iota. At task force meetings, he pushes the church-state separationist perspective. I'm sure this does not always please proponents of the faith-based initiative, but Barry was asked to articulate AU's view and he does.</p>
<p>By the way, Barry would have been happy to serve in a similar capacity during the Bush administration. It was never offered. Bush preferred to take his counsel only from groups that he knew agreed with him.</p>
<p>Obama has put both proponents and opponents of the faith-based initiative on the task force and other bodies that advise him on this subject. We interpret this to mean that he and his staff must want to hear all perspectives, and that's what AU is doing: giving them the separationist view.</p>
<p>Will it make a difference? Will the faith-based initiative eventually be changed in a way that pleases AU and its allies? We don't know yet. But there's one thing we do know for sure: It won't happen if we don't push for it.</p>
<p>I hope, Ms. Hemingway, this sheds a little light on what's really going on with the faith-based initiative. It's not nearly as ominous as you think.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/barack-obama">Barack Obama</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/faith-based-initiative">faith-based initiative</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/mollie-ziegler-hemingway">mollie ziegler hemingway</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/pew-forum">Pew Forum</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/wall-street-journal">wall street journal</a></span></div></div>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:06:12 +0000Rob Boston2016 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/faith-based-bungle-wsj-op-ed-writer-gets-it-wrong#comments